Billion + believe in Satan. Should all schools be mandated to teach Creationism?

We must save our children from foolish belief in the supernatural.

Education is the only tool that we have to drag ourselves and our children out of ignorance and superstition and that education should include that it is foolish to read myth literally. No more Dark Ages should be allowed.

Comparative Religion should be taught to insure that no child is lost to creationist intellectual dissonance. We must expose our children to Comparative Religion as soon as they can understand Evolution which would be taught alongside of it.

To do less would be shirking our duty to our children and their young minds. If you do not supports this type of all-inclusive education, please show why you oppose it?

Remember that when President Bush backed up stem cell research, it gave other countries a chance to advance away from the U.S. and hurt the U.S economy.

If the U.S. fails to educate it’s children properly in Comparative Religion and Evolution --- and the various sciences that stem from it, --- the U.S. will shrink it’s economy and power as compared to those countries who have a fuller and more intelligent education program.

Do you agree that it is the duty of the U.S. education system to maintain a first world standard of education in the teaching of Creationism, Comparative Religion and Evolution, --- and catch up to more intelligent countries?

Our children are not being taught the supernatural, they get taught christianity where my daughter goes, and I explain what other people believe if she asks.Supernatural is not taught in our schools GIa so there is no need for creationism.

stuart torr wrote:Our children are not being taught the supernatural, they get taught christianity where my daughter goes, and I explain what other people believe if she asks.Supernatural is not taught in our schools GIa so there is no need for creationism.

polyglide wrote:To enable children to make choices they must be made aware of ALL options open to them.

Unless that is so' they have no alternative other than to base their ideas etc; on that which is selected by individuals and as we are aware individuals are individuals.

It depends how creationism is framed. If creation myths are taught within an historical context of beliefs that humans have held, but that have no scientific basis or evidence then I'd not see a problem. What subject would this come under though? The school curriculum is tight enough, and I'd not want to see t a child's education involve indoctrination into one religion or another. I think faith schools are an appalling abuse of a child's education and ought not to be state funded. Church is the place to teach religion if a parent wants their child to have their head crammed with superstition before they're old enough to understand, but then I'd rather that didn't happen as well.

Good post Sheldon.My child is taught c of e in her curriculum at the age of 8years, and she is old enough to ask her mum or myself questions with regards to it, so I point these out at the teachers evening, if I think they are going overboard on the subject at her age.

My brother in law teaches primary school children and had to sit mute while a visitor filled their heads with hokum superstition. He was mortified but on that occasion helpless to intervene. I find it deeply worrying that children are not allowed to grow up first before they are confronted with beliefs and superstitions, let alone as part of their state funded education.

With so many religions now in each class, how can c of e go down with Muslims and Hindus and any other type of religion? Surely when it comes to religious practice, they should have separate classes for each pupil that has a different religion anyway?

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:My brother in law teaches primary school children and had to sit mute while a visitor filled their heads with hokum superstition. He was mortified but on that occasion helpless to intervene. I find it deeply worrying that children are not allowed to grow up first before they are confronted with beliefs and superstitions, let alone as part of their state funded education.

Do you prefer the non-secular world imprinting their beliefs before the secular world does?

The secular adult world is better educated in religion than the religious world and that indicates a secular interest in religious studies. If secular parents want to know and teach themselves religious studies, it follows that they would not mind starting their secular interest in religion earlier for their children. They would vote for a more intelligent level of religious education. It would improve on what is being taught to religious children today.

It is also the duty of the secular world to insure that it's future members are not as deluded by superstitious belief as their parents. The tipping point of belief is fast approaching and duty says that we should facilitate change.

Is a good knowledge base a good defence against superstition?Yes it is.

stuart torr wrote:With so many religions now in each class, how can c of e go down with Muslims and Hindus and any other type of religion? Surely when it comes to religious practice, they should have separate classes for each pupil that has a different religion anyway?

That will teach tolerance. Not. We want rapprochement. Not separation.

GIa muslim islams and hindus will be taught their own religion when they get home by their parents will they not? so teaching them c of e will only confuse them also will it not GIa? and you do not want confused school children asking their teacher a multitude of questions about their own religion, which a c of e teacher will not be able to answer.

stuart torr wrote:GIa muslim islams and hindus will be taught their own religion when they get home by their parents will they not? so teaching them c of e will only confuse them also will it not GIa? and you do not want confused school children asking their teacher a multitude of questions about their own religion, which a c of e teacher will not be able to answer.

Way too general for my agreement.

If they find things too confusing then they will be thinking and rejecting confusing supernatural aspects because sense can be made of most of the other religious trappings.

Do you prefer the non-secular world imprinting their beliefs before the secular world does?

Sheldon Cooper wrote:No, or I'd have said so, besides I have no idea what beliefs you're referring to. I don't think a religious beliefs should be part of state funded education, except if they are taught in a secular context. If parents want to teach their children religion that's their call, though I wish they wouldn't.

The secular adult world is better educated in religion than the religious world and that indicates a secular interest in religious studies.

Sheldon Cooper wrote:I'm not sure this is the case to be honest.

If secular parents want to know and teach themselves religious studies, it follows that they would not mind starting their secular interest in religion earlier for their children. They would vote for a more intelligent level of religious education. It would improve on what is being taught to religious children today.

Sheldon Cooper wrote:Again I'm not convinced this the case, but again I don't think religion should be part of a state funded education, except in a secular context. For me this would be a vast improvement on teaching a child to believe in a particular religion based on the parents wishes.

It is also the duty of the secular world to insure that it's future members are not as deluded by superstitious belief as their parents.

Sheldon Cooper wrote:Well yes, but I fear it's not as simple a task as this. Human beings are superstitious by nature.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Do you prefer the non-secular world imprinting their beliefs before the secular world does?

Sheldon Cooper wrote:No, or I'd have said so, besides I have no idea what beliefs you're referring to. I don't think a religious beliefs should be part of state funded education, except if they are taught in a secular context. If parents want to teach their children religion that's their call, though I wish they wouldn't.

The secular adult world is better educated in religion than the religious world and that indicates a secular interest in religious studies.

Sheldon Cooper wrote:I'm not sure this is the case to be honest.

If secular parents want to know and teach themselves religious studies, it follows that they would not mind starting their secular interest in religion earlier for their children. They would vote for a more intelligent level of religious education. It would improve on what is being taught to religious children today.

Sheldon Cooper wrote:Again I'm not convinced this the case, but again I don't think religion should be part of a state funded education, except in a secular context. For me this would be a vast improvement on teaching a child to believe in a particular religion based on the parents wishes.

It is also the duty of the secular world to insure that it's future members are not as deluded by superstitious belief as their parents.

Sheldon Cooper wrote:Well yes, but I fear it's not as simple a task as this. Human beings are superstitious by nature.

Yes and to use that against children without the state for-arming children of it, is evil indeed.

To do as religions do and use that propensity against us with their constant lying to us is also quite immoral.

I have to admit he seems to be trying to pass his own superstition off as somehow different, but when questioned only offers broad sweeping claims and YouTube videos. It strikes me as hokum, and I feel disinclined to indulge any superstition, regardless of how it's dressed up. I have pointed out before that the grandiose claims he makes about equality and better morals don't require religion, but he just claims all the worlds ills are not being solved by secularism, without actually substantiating the claim with tangible evidence of course.

polyglide wrote:-….a world in need of God's help, which according to my faith will not be long in coming.

Just about every Christian I’ve ever met has said that. But then they’ve been saying it for 2,000 years. The Black Death of the 1340s made a lot of people think that the ‘end time’ had arrived – it had for 1.5 million of the 4 million people who then lived in England.

They were even saying it 2,000 years ago. The earliest Christians believed that many of their scriptures were already being realised in their own day. They certainly were not expecting a 2,000 year hiatus before the rest of the prophecies were fulfilled. Furthermore, Matthew 16:28 reports Christ as saying: “I assure you that there are some here who will not die until they have seen the Son of Man come as King”. Mark 13:30 quotes him too: “All these things will happen before all the people now living have all died”.

Paul thought he was living “in these last days” (Hebrews 1:2), and wrote: “Just a little while longer, and he who is coming will come; he will not delay” (Hebrews 10:37). In Philippians (4:5) he told us: “The Lord is coming soon”. It’s obvious that Paul was certain the ‘end time’ would occur in the lifetime of his contemporaries.

I apologise for going off the subject of the thread here, but I strongly advise that nobody should give up their job or blow all their savings on the strength of any belief that ‘the second coming’ is just around the corner.

I do this in a religious forum because it is mostly religions who have institutionalized discrimination without just cause against women and gays.

RegardsDL

Religions are predominantly man made, they derive from male dominated misogynistic societies, it's hardly surprising that religious texts are replete with prejudice and misogyny. As far as the thread OP is concerned I don't think teaching a creationist myth where men are portrayed as the main show and women as an after thought or helper is going to help change attitudes. The answer is universal human rights for every man woman and child. No one who would deny rights to another that they'd claim for themselves has the right to preach morality.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:....The answer is universal human rights for every man woman and child. No one who would deny rights to another that they'd claim for themselves has the right to preach morality.

If we went by your standards, the U.N. would vanish as most of their members do not pass the U.N. charter on human rights. Not even the U.S. although they talk a great line.

The West does not walk its talk any better than Christianity or Islam.

KJV Genesis 1. 26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Greatest I am wrote:-If we went by your standards, the U.N. would vanish as most of their members do not pass the U.N. charter on human rights. Not even the U.S. although they talk a great line.

The West does not walk its talk any better than Christianity or Islam.

You made this exact post before and your point escaped me then as well. I made no mention of the UN or the West. Universal human rights are the answer, not replacing established religions with new hokum superstitions.